A.K. Yog, J.
1. This petition has been filed by one Constable, Rama Kant Shukla, serving in Border Security Force. Admittedly, provisions of Border Security Force Act, 1968, are applicable to the facts of the present case. Petitioner was serving somewhere in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 21.6.1995 where some Incident alleged to have taken place. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 25th July. 1995 under 09 Battalion Border Security Force, where he was serving. He was put under summary trial by Summary Security Force Court as contemplated under the aforesaid Act. Evidence was led at Gujarat as isevident from the Annexures filed along with the writ petition.
2. The dismissal order dated 23.2.1996 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) was passed and promulgated at Gujarat as contemplated under aforesaid Act.
3. A supplementary-affidavit was filed by the petitioner when this Court directed to disclose the cause of action. In para 3 of the Supplementary Affidavit. It is stated that petitioner had left place of his posting (at Gujarat) and no document has been filed to show when he left Gujarat after obtaining permission from the concerned competent authorities. The Supplementary Affidavit further discloses that petitioner was at Allahabad (though according to him for his treatment) where he received order of dismissal, which was redirected from his village address at Pratapgarh in State of U. P.
4. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit and a rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset raised two preliminary objections--namely, this Court has no jurisdiction as neither cause of action nor any part of it had arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this Court and secondly petitioner has an adequate and efficacious remedy available under Section 117 Border Security Force Act, 1968.
6. I have heard Sri A. N. Tripathi. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri 5. K. Rai, Advocate, learned counsel representing the respondent.
7. On the preliminaryobjections, learned counsel for therespondents Sri Ral has placedreliance on the following decisions :
1. Chabi Nath Rai v. Union of India and others, 1997 (1) UPLBEC 236 (DB) (Paras 6 to 8).
2. Daya Shanker Bhardwaj v. Chief of the Air Staff, New Delhi and others. AIR 1988 All 36.
3. Rakesh Dhar Tripathi v. Union of India and others, 1988 All 47.
4. State of Rajasthan and others v. M/s. Swatka Properties and another, AIR 1985 SC 1289.
5. Oil and Natural Gas Commission u. Utpal Kumar Basu and others, JT 1994 (51 SC 1 (Para 7).
8. Leaned counsel for the petitioner initially attempted to distinguish those cases and seek to place reliance on the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Bhaskar Dutt Misra and others, 1986 UPLBEC 252, (Hon'ble N. D. Ojha. J.) placing reliance on the decision in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh, AIR 1966 SC 1313.
9. Cases in State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra) and State of Punjab, (supra) have been taken note of by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chabt Nath Rai, (supra).
10. In the case of Chabi Nath Ral. (supra) this Court considered various decisions and laid emphasis on the distinction between cause of action and the right of action. It has also been held that jurisdiction was dependent upon the facts determined on the plea where cause of action arises and jurisdiction cannot be determined on the basis of place where the person gets right of action i.e., where the order is actually served.
11. There is no reason not to accept the view expressed in the case of Chabi Nath Rai, (supra) on the question of jurisdiction.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that in case petitioner is allowed to avail alternative remedy, he will not press this petition and avail the alternative remedy.
13. Keeping in mind the entirety of the circumstances of the present case particularly the fact that petitioner has been dismissed from service : it will be in the fitness of things and the ends of justice A.W.C. 50demands that he be allowed to peruse his alternative remedy.
14. Learned counsel, on behalf of the respondent has no objection to the above, if concerned authority promptly and without undue delay decides on merit on being approached.
15. In view of the above, petitioner may avail his alternative remedy under Section 117. Border Security Force Act. 1968 in accordance with law which respondent shall not oppose on ground of delay/laches or limitation, as expressed before this Court and noted above.
16. In this given case, parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits, hence this Court should not non-suit petitioner on this ground particularly when alternative remedy has become time-barred.
In the instant case (when this Court has no jurisdiction), it is not competent to issue direction to respondents. But in the instant case situation is different. Respondents cannot reprobate and aprobate stand taken by the respondents and noted above, non-suits the respondent from taking objection of delay, if petitioner approaches for relief under Section 117, Border Security Force Act, 1968.
In view of the above, no party has grievance if the rights of the petitioner are adjudicated on merit under Section 117. Border Security Force Act. 1968.
In the result, writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine solely on the ground of alternative remedy. Dismissal of writ petition or any observation made in this judgment shall not affect or prejudice either of the parties in any manner while matter is being considered and decided under Section 117. Border Security Force Act. Petitioner shall not be non-suited on ground of delay, time consumed in writ shall be excluded. If he approaches under Section 117 of the Act within three months from today.
No order as to costs.